Wedding RSVP's with added guests

[NMAmy]

Ever see the film "The Wedding Date?"

Didn't the character in the movie pay a guy to pretend to be her boyfriend--not a casual date? Maybe I'm thinking of a different movie but it doesn't really seem to fit with what you're saying if it's the movie I'm thinking of.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I definitely agree it is VERY poor taste to add on invites, but I don't think it is proper to invite a single-ton and not allow him or her to bring a guest. ...

There are so many different friends and family groups and "coupling" at weddings (who do you slow dance with if you are by yourself) and the bride and groom do so much hopping between guests, I think it is only right to allow everyone (married or not) to bring a guest so that they have an enjoyable evening too.

And to those who say that there are lots of people to socialize and dance with...reminds me of a divorced woman I worked with who told me about the previous year's Christmas party, where the women were whispering to and urging their SOs to go dance with her because she was all alone. It was horrifiying and embarrassing. And before every says whatever in response, that kind of thing DOES happen...maybe not to you, and you'd never do it to anyone else...but if you're a singleton in a group of marrieds, it does happen sometimes. And I don't think anyone...bride/groom/DISers should be deciding that anyone shouldn't feel awkward in a situation because they themselves wouldn't.

I agree totally. While I find it rude to add guests to an RSVP, I find it equally, actually even more rude to invite single people without allowing for an escort to a wedding.

I would and did cut other areas of our wedding to make sure that each person was invited as a couple.

First thing we did when planning our wedding was make the guest list (including "and guests") and planned our reception accordingly.

BTW that phrase, "Flavor of the Week" bothers me. It seems to be used most often by those in a committed relationship. Don't you remember what it is like to date? I think it belittles the singles. I've been married a long time, and part of a couple for much longer, but I remember what it was like to be single and how once a person paired up we singles suddenly became third class citizens. I've tried, and hope that I have succeeded, to not do this to my friends.

"Flavor of the Week" is a really creepy phrase, IMHO.

if you open that door and invite some children, you are pretty much forced to invite all children. My kids have been excluded from a lot of weddings - love them a lot, but can bear to be apart from them for 4 hours or so, at an adult funtion.

Ditto.

I disagree with this. If you are a young couple with lots of friends that can be alot of people! DS and DFIL have a large circle of friends. If they have significant others, then they get invited...otherwise they will come single or decline. The only children being invited are my 2 and my 2 nieces. They are inviting 150, and if they included everyones kids and in significant others, I can't imagine what the guest amount would be.

The wedding couple get to decide who they want and the type of wedding they have. It is not rude of them to do this. As a guest if you don't like it, you don't have to go.

My cousins DD only had 2 kids, my brothers at her wedding. My youngest 2 were not invited. I made the decision not to attend. I know my family wasn't happy, but with my DH staying home with the kids, I knew I wouldn't have had a good time without him, so I made the decision.

It would be rude to invite a husband with out a wife and vice versa, or a person and not their fiance.

RSVPing or showing up with people not on the invite is beyond rude!!

Who determines what constitutes a "significant other"? How much time they spend together? (Two dates a week, 5?) If they live in the same state, or town and can see each other more often? Rank their love on some sort of "wedding planner" scale? Some people are ready to get married after 3 months of dating, some 5 years, so the amount of time together isn't necessarily a good indicator of "significant other" status.

My first date with my DH was 4th of July, 1979. By September, I knew "he's the one". We went to college together, I got an apartment down the street from his home (he worked for the landlady), we visited my parents together...we were definitely a couple, and very early on. The following September, I was invited to my cousin's wedding in NJ (I was in RI); my aunt, uncle and cousin had met (and very much liked) my DH. I grew up close to the bride (mom's sister's DD), and two other cousins who were also her cousins...one was a year older than me, one a year younger. Both of those cousins were married. So these two cousins who I grew up with almost as a "triplet" were, of course, invited with their spouses, and I wasn't invited with a guest. Yes, I thought it was rude and it was uncomfortable for me. I was 22 at the time...a big girl...I should've been invited with a guest. And might I add...I have now been married to my DH for 25 years; those two cousins have been divorced twice. (Just sayin'.) I would NEVER just have brought an uninvited guest, and I could have chosen not to go at all, but I did want to see my family and be a part of my cousin's wedding. That doesn't discount the rudeness factor of not being invited with a guest.

that it's rude to assume a guest will be invited, unless you are part of an established "social unit".

Again...what is an "established social unit". By whose standards? Married or engaged, and nothing else? Living together, and then eliminating those who choose not to live together? Dating for a certain number of years? What about dating for many years but choosing never to get married? Does that mean they never fit someone's definition of a social unit? Or should it be an age thing...if you're 19 and have been dating for two years, it's a "no guest", but if you're 30 and dating for a year, the guest is included?

I pulled my etiquette book from the 1940's and it says exactly the same thing. In fact if you thought the young lady might be part of a couple you would phone her mother and ask, if necessary you would obtain the young man's address and send the invite directly to him.

I'd have a problem with that, unless the young man would have been invited anyway, if the couple was no longer together. If the bride/groom expect that he'd be coming with "the young lady", I believe the invitation should go to her, for her to decide if she wants to bring him to the wedding. Perhaps she has a reason not to want him there...if he's part of a couple with her, it's up to her to decide. But, if he has since developed a strong relationship with the couple to be married and they specifically want him as a guest, then send a separate invitation. (Not based on "official" etiquette...JMHO.)

We went to a wedding last week, and boy, did DH and I have some issues with it. He didn't want to go for some reasons, and I insisted...this was his nephew getting married. But one thing that irked me...and yes, there are certainly bigger things in life...our invitation came addressed to "Mr John Smith and Family." I mean...did they look AT ALL in an etiquette book??? Might have well have said "Mr John Smith and whatsername and the kids." (I cut out the address and have it on my refrigerator...it makes me laugh, as obnoxious as I think it is.) No inside envelope. Our kids didn't go (two are in college and had returned to school, so we didn't make DS go without them there); I was SO tempted to introduce myself in the receiving line (except there wasn't one, so we didn't even meet her family except her mother who stopped by the table) as "and family."

I've been to weddings that my kids weren't invited to (have gotten a babysitter or left kids/DH at home), and wedding where they were and we took them. Both situations are fine with me.

 

[okeydokey]

My husband's cousin did this to us. He was recently divorced and the rest of the family was coming, but he sent his rsvp for himself and a guest. We didn't say anything and expanded the guest list. Then he never even showed up.

 

[npmommie]

LOL, how timely for this conversation...........

we just received a wedding invitation in the mail today.........addressed to Mr. and Mrs X and childrens names

and the reception is being held at a nice waterfront restaurant. definitely not a casual place.

 

[DisneyFan32WI]

For my wedding, I addressed the envelopes "Ms. Jane Doe and Guest" for all my single friends.

 

[purplebelle]

We asked our guests please not bring guests with them unless to prevent "flavor of the week" significant others from attending our wedding. There was no way that I wanted to pay over $100/guest for the reception to only have stangers there. The majority of our guests understood, and in the end we did allow a few guests to bring their sig others (even newer ones) due to guests dropping out at the last minute as we'd already paid the remainder of our balance.

I would send out another email/letter or a phone call informing them about the no guest policy due to already being at the maximum capacity for the reception location. Additionally, enclose a new response card asking for the correct number who will be attending. The worst that will happen is that they will take offense and be a no show. If the guests does not know you they might not have read the email or it may have gone to their junk mail folder, so a written response might be the best route, as long as you politely explain the reasoning for the note.

I don't think it's right to decide who's a flavor-of-the-week and who's not. I thought the point of inviting people with a guest is so they bring who they want for a fun time, not who you want.

 

[Scurvy]

Again...what is an "established social unit". By whose standards? Married or engaged, and nothing else? Living together, and then eliminating those who choose not to live together? Dating for a certain number of years? What about dating for many years but choosing never to get married? Does that mean they never fit someone's definition of a social unit?

We went to a wedding last week, and boy, did DH and I have some issues with it. He didn't want to go for some reasons, and I insisted...this was his nephew getting married. But one thing that irked me...and yes, there are certainly bigger things in life...our invitation came addressed to "Mr John Smith and Family." I mean...did they look AT ALL in an etiquette book??? Might have well have said "Mr John Smith and whatsername and the kids." (I cut out the address and have it on my refrigerator...it makes me laugh, as obnoxious as I think it is.) No inside envelope. Our kids didn't go (two are in college and had returned to school, so we didn't make DS go without them there); I was SO tempted to introduce myself in the receiving line (except there wasn't one, so we didn't even meet her family except her mother who stopped by the table) as "and family."

Given your bolded response to the invitation you received, I am assuming that you know how useful an etiquette book can be. Most of them do a good job of explaining what constitutes an established social unit. One reason I find "rules" like this so helpful is that is eliminates most of the guesswork. It doesn't matter how old the couple is or when they met or any of those things for the purpose of invitations. You don't have to agonize over who is part of a social unit and who isn't - you just have to look at how they define themselves. A married couple is an established social unit. An engaged couple is also an established social unit, as is a couple who live together. A dating couple is not, though if they've been seriously dating for many years most people will likely consider them one for invitation purposes even though they don't have to.

 

[C.Ann]

Wow! That takes a lot of nerve!! Are people really that rude??

 

[Disney Doll]

I agree totally. While I find it rude to add guests to an RSVP, I find it equally, actually even more rude to invite single people without allowing for an escort to a wedding.

I would and did cut other areas of our wedding to make sure that each person was invited as a couple.

You know, I was single for a long time (almost 30 when I got married) and amazingly enough, I always had a good time as a single...danced, met new people, and didn't have to worry about entertaining my guest who wouldn't know anyone there other than me.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Given your bolded response to the invitation you received, I am assuming that you know how useful an etiquette book can be. Most of them do a good job of explaining what constitutes an established social unit. One reason I find "rules" like this so helpful is that is eliminates most of the guesswork. It doesn't matter how old the couple is or when they met or any of those things for the purpose of invitations. You don't have to agonize over who is part of a social unit and who isn't - you just have to look at how they define themselves. A married couple is an established social unit. An engaged couple is also an established social unit, as is a couple who live together. A dating couple is not, though if they've been seriously dating for many years most people will likely consider them one for invitation purposes even though they don't have to.

You've contradicted yourself. You said "you just have to look at how they define themselves" and then went on to say is how others define them that counts. You also said that it doesn't matter when they met (I meant in terms of how long they've been together), yet they might get the if the wedding planners decides that they've been "seriously dating for many years" and that it fits the bill of being an established social unit.

And age doesn't matter? Ever? A 40 year old woman (no marriage plans) wouldn't be invited with a guest, to an event full of people younger than her with husbands, fiances or live-ins?

Why should a couple who chooses to live together with no plans to marry, be more of an established couple than a couple who is not living together, who might privately (talking about it, haven't announced it) be discussing getting married? I mean...that's what the wedding planners (bride/groom/parents) might be seeing. And who defines "seriously dating"? Or "many years"?

Believe me...*I* dont' have to agonize over establishing whose relationships rate as "an established social unit" or not. I invited singles with guests, period. And so will my kids.

No kidding brides "don't have to" consider anything about their guests...they can do whatever they want...it's their party. If I've learned anything on the DIS, it's that.

And for all those people who have GREAT times at wedding without bringing a guest (I've gone to weddings myself without my DH and had a great time).... No one is being FORCED to bring a guest...it's about extending the courtesy of the option to single people.

 

[Disney Doll]

I've personally never been to a wedding without kids but from reading here I realize that it's not that way everywhere. I have never seen a child interupt a ceremony or cause trouble at the reception. If a baby starts to fuss at the ceremony, one of the parents or another relative takes them out to the vestibule or a quiet room.

I have been to weddings with and without kids.

At the weddings with kids, I have seen the kids:
~Knock over the cake
~Scream/carry on/babble through the entire ceremony while Mom & Dad looked on smilingly at how cute Junior was because he was "singing" at the wedding. The priest actually finally asked them to remove the child to the vestibule until he quieted down...imagine that!
~Trip one of the guests crossing the dance floor when the child decided to suddenly drop to the floor and "break dance"...again while Mom and Dad looked on smilingly at how talented Junior was.
~Get stepped on when they went, as one of the "single" people, to catch the bouquet or garter...now I ask you, as a parent of a child, would you want your 8 year old boy reaching up the dress of an older woman to place a garter on her thigh or would you want your 8 year old daughter's dress beinig reached up by an older man so he could place a garter on her thigh? Note: YOUR 8 YEAR OLD IS NOT "SINGLE"...THEY ARE 8!!!!!!!!!!

Now, very shortly, someone is going to say "Well, what about the obnoxious drunk adult? They can ruin a wedding too". True..but them I can escort them out and call a cab to drive them home...or call the police and have them arrested if they get really out of hand. Hard to do that with a kid.

Bottom line is this: The only people who are invited are the people whose names are actually on the invitation. A guest has no right to add anyone. A guest has a right to decline the invitation if it does not "work" for them for some reason. The bridal couple has a right to have whatever kind of wedding they want.

 

[Disney Doll]

I had a wedding of over 200 people. And I knew every one of them, and no, young children were not invited. And yes, I was (and am) close to these people. In fact, despite being married 18 years ago, we are still in contact with all the people who attended our wedding.

It's pretty insulting to assume that anyone with a large wedding who doesn't want young children there only cares about gifts and money.

But, of course, that's only my opinion. YMMV.

Julia

I agree with you. My wedding was 200 people as well, and we knew everyone there. Some folks DH knew better because they were more from his "side" of the wedding list. The youngest children I had were 13.

And BTW, a lot of the people at my wedding were elderly, on fixed incomes, and so their gifts were not very extravagant, but I was still thrilled to have them there because they were people who were special to us...so much for the "gift grab" theory.

 

[Disney Doll]

I'm basing it on social norms within my income class and where I live. I have never, ever been to a wedding where guests were not welcomed. And in planning mine, I absolutely made sure to budget for dates.

Ever see the film "The Wedding Date?"

It's just common social norm for singles to bring a guests to a wedding.

Must be different in different areas of the country because it is really not a social norm here on the east coast. It's nice if people do it, but it is not considered "disgusting" if they don't.

 

[Pigeon]

Must be different in different areas of the country because it is really not a social norm here on the east coast. It's nice if people do it, but it is not considered "disgusting" if they don't.

I'm on the east coast, and it absolutely is the social norm in every one of the six eastern towns I've lived in

 

[arminnie]

I truly do not get this stuff about why a single MUST be allowed to bring a "guest". I've been single for a long time. I have rarely taken a guest (only when it was a long-time boyfriend who also knew the couple) - much more fun unless the "guest" also knows people there.

I've been the "guest" a few times where I didn't know the B&G. Honestly I felt kind of stupid being there. I've also been the "guest" when I knew the B&G. It felt strange to be at a wedding where I was not invited. I was not upset about not making the guest list cut - but did feel weird being there just because the best man decided to bring me.

A wedding is to CELEBRATE the marriage of the B&G. It is not date night.

I've lived in:
Southern California
Northern California
Louisiana
Pennsylvania (eastern and western)
New York
London
Texas (Dallas & Houston)
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Michigan
Boston
plus have been to weddings in many other states.

I have NEVER felt that I must bring a date to a wedding to have a good time. Nor has it ever been expected that a date must be invited.

Last year I went to an out of town wedding of the daughter of long-time friends of mine. I had known the parents of the bride since long before they married (used to double date a lot decades ago). I really did not know the bride as I had not lived in the same city since she was born.

I went without a "guest" (although I was invited to bring one). I really didn't know anyone except the parents of the bride - who certainly could not entertain me all evening. But I went out of respect for my friends who truly appreciated me making the effort to attend.

It was not about how can I have a "fun time" - but about paying respect to the parents of the bride. I feel that you attend a wedding to celebrate the marriage. Hopefully you can also have a good time - but the focus should be on the marriage that is taking place not how a single guest can have a good date.

 

[Stacerita]

Wow! That takes a lot of nerve!! Are people really that rude??

Yes it does, and yes they are.

 

[NMAmy]

I have been to weddings with and without kids.

At the weddings with kids, I have seen the kids:
~Knock over the cake
~Scream/carry on/babble through the entire ceremony while Mom & Dad looked on smilingly at how cute Junior was because he was "singing" at the wedding. The priest actually finally asked them to remove the child to the vestibule until he quieted down...imagine that!
~Trip one of the guests crossing the dance floor when the child decided to suddenly drop to the floor and "break dance"...again while Mom and Dad looked on smilingly at how talented Junior was.
~Get stepped on when they went, as one of the "single" people, to catch the bouquet or garter...now I ask you, as a parent of a child, would you want your 8 year old boy reaching up the dress of an older woman to place a garter on her thigh or would you want your 8 year old daughter's dress beinig reached up by an older man so he could place a garter on her thigh? Note: YOUR 8 YEAR OLD IS NOT "SINGLE"...THEY ARE 8!!!!!!!!!!

Now, very shortly, someone is going to say "Well, what about the obnoxious drunk adult? They can ruin a wedding too". True..but them I can escort them out and call a cab to drive them home...or call the police and have them arrested if they get really out of hand. Hard to do that with a kid.

Bottom line is this: The only people who are invited are the people whose names are actually on the invitation. A guest has no right to add anyone. A guest has a right to decline the invitation if it does not "work" for them for some reason. The bridal couple has a right to have whatever kind of wedding they want.

I guess I just know better behaved kids. Just kidding! I can tell you've never been to a wedding with my mom or any of the older members of my family because they have no problem letting young parents know they need to take that kid out and I've yet to see anyone in the family brave enough to take on the little old ladies.

I think you may have missed the line I wrote immediately after the line you quoted. I wasn't advocating that all kids needed to go to all weddings no matter what. I don't really care one way or the other, actually, and since I had no young kids myself, I have no dog in this fight anymore.

I've personally never been to a wedding without kids but from reading here I realize that it's not that way everywhere. I have never seen a child interupt a ceremony or cause trouble at the reception. If a baby starts to fuss at the ceremony, one of the parents or another relative takes them out to the vestibule or a quiet room. I think weddings are a great way for kids to get to know extended family that they don't see that often.

As I said in an earlier post, it's the bride & groom's choice and while I've yet to experience it, I respect it. It's a moot point for me, anyway, since my dd is 18.

 

[lsyorke]

I'm on the east coast, and it absolutely is the social norm in every one of the six eastern towns I've lived in

Not in Jersey!

 

[PollyannaMom]

....In my family weddings are family events. Most involve a lot of travel since my family is very scattered, so naturally the children are invited to the wedding since we've all come from out of state.....

I wish everyone assumed that! I had to send DH to a friend's wedding by himself last summer (that we were both invited to) because they included no children but the (very lonely) flower girl. The bride thought we could just get a sitter....for a week, 5000 miles away.

....I have always loved that. When we got married, I invited the children of all my first cousins. They had a blast, I had a mini buffet of pizza, chicken nuggets, fries and shirley temples, a kid table with coloring books, crayons, matchbox cars, etc. The kids had a great time. I had the DJ play songs from Shrek for them. It was fun. But that was what I wanted and I got married in a smallish city where things are cheap.....

This sounds SO cute! I also love seeing children at weddings, and have some of the best pictures of my nieces twirling their puffy dresses while dancing with their grandfather. I couldn't have imagined my wedding without kids, either. What a great idea to do something special for them!

(And to all those who chose an elegant, adults-only wedding, I'm not saying you are wrong. It's OK for us to picture weddings differently! And I've been to local ones like that, and had a great time.)


To the OP's original question - They should definitely not have just added people on the reply! If someone had a real issue, I guess they should have called you and explained (though I would be kind of embarrassed to do that.)But I guess that way, if someone else had already replied "no", you could have included the extra guest instead if you wanted to.

 

[MIGrandma]

I did go to one wedding that I wasn't invited to. It was many years ago, my parents were going to the wedding of the son of some of their church friends. Dad got sick and couldn't go so Mom asked me to go in his place. We didn't feel that it was wrong for me to go, since Dad had planned on going so they were expecting 2 people. So since Dad didn't go I just took his place. If anyone was upset about it, they never let on. I would not have gone as an "extra."

Personally, I think weddings are getting out of hand. I can't even imagine paying $75 - $100 per person for a "plated" dinner at a reception. That is just ridiculous. But as long as people are willing to pay, the prices are just going to keep going up.

When DH and I got married in '75 it was still considered okay to have a cake and punch reception, and that is what we had. We could have afforded a better reception, with food and dancing, but we opted to use that money to furnish our new home rather than throw it away on a better reception.

When our DD got married in 2000 they had a buffet dinner, and the venue planned for 20% extra people just in case some brought "guests" with them. I think of a single person is invited to a wedding they should be allowed to bring someone with them so they don't have to go/sit alone.

And I definitely agree with "no kids!" During the ceremony of my DD's wedding there was a baby on the groom's side of the church that fussed the entire time. I gave them "the look" twice, and others were craning their necks giving the parents "the look" as well. The parents just sat there, didn't even make an attempt at shushing the baby and nobody bothered to take it outside or down to a room in the basement. Disgusting. Babies don't belong at weddings.